-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I know there are a lot of ME fans here, but I don't think anyone here (aside from maybe TEG since he writes for ME's blog) really knows much more than what the media has reported.
What I'm excited about here (and I'm sure TM is excited about as well) is that we finally get some details as to what each party feels really went down. For TM, this is a great way to publicly address all the speculation that has been going on in a PROFESSIONAL and legal manner.
I bet Rachel is in heaven right now.
What I'm excited about here (and I'm sure TM is excited about as well) is that we finally get some details as to what each party feels really went down. For TM, this is a great way to publicly address all the speculation that has been going on in a PROFESSIONAL and legal manner.
I bet Rachel is in heaven right now.
xcelero.ii
Push Start Go
Wow. This does, however, seem like it would have happen sooner or later. I hope Tesla emerges from this unscathed and all parties reconciled.
Some interesting claims are included in the complaint:
- Musk was never enrolled in a PhD program in physics at Stanford, as he often claims.
- Musk does not have a B.Sc. in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, as he also often claims.
- Musk was granted an undergraduate degree in economics from U of Penn in 1997, not 1995. This change in dates was necessary to fit with his Stanford story. Musk founded Zip2 in 1995, so it looks like he completed his economics degree after starting Zip2.
This info is from pages 18-19 of the complaint.
If this is true, it means that Musk has been deceiving a lot of people for a long time, which speaks to his character.
- Musk was never enrolled in a PhD program in physics at Stanford, as he often claims.
- Musk does not have a B.Sc. in physics from the University of Pennsylvania, as he also often claims.
- Musk was granted an undergraduate degree in economics from U of Penn in 1997, not 1995. This change in dates was necessary to fit with his Stanford story. Musk founded Zip2 in 1995, so it looks like he completed his economics degree after starting Zip2.
This info is from pages 18-19 of the complaint.
If this is true, it means that Musk has been deceiving a lot of people for a long time, which speaks to his character.
Tesla being valued around $500M and Martin holding 3-5% of the stock, I'd say Tesla's interest is Martin's interest. Ruining things for Tesla is not in Martin's best interest. Ousting an imposter (even a rich one) just may be in Martin's and Tesla's best interest.
Time will tell.
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
I just read through the whole Complaint. I don't know the whole history of the animosity between ME and EM (ironic that their initials are mirror images -- like arch enemies in a comic book or something). I am relatively new to this board and to Tesla in general, and only really got interested when I heard the Model S was on its way. So take what I write below as coming from a complete outsider solely analyzing this from a legal practitioner's point of view -- I have no horse in this race and don't know who is the good guy or bad guy in this dispute.
In any case, solely from a legal point of view ME has a pretty weak case based on the Complaint. Obviously, he and EM don't like each other much, but there's nothing unlawful or actionable in saying things like, "Martin Eberhad is the worst person I've ever met or worked with", which EM allegedly said at one point. Most or all of what EM says about ME is opinion, not knowingly false facts, and that is the standard for a defamation claim.
ME's claim about the "Founder" issue is also weak because most or all of his examples are situations where someone else calls EM the "founder" of TM, and he faults EM for failing to correct them. I mean, if it was EM's (or anyone's) responsibility to correct every false bit of information that the media says, he'd never stop issuing corrections! I know of no case where a court would allow a claim of defamation based on statements by others that weren't corrected by the defendant -- that's too high a burden to place on people. And even if ME were right about the Founder issue, his assertion that because EM wanted to be known as a "Founder" at PayPal seems a bit attenuated, especially because they didn't put a specific dollar value on it.
I think ME's strongest argument is on his car. That's a pretty weird story, and I could see a court giving ME some compensation for the fact that EM may have negligently allowed ME's car to get in an accident before it was ever delivered to him. ME, though, will have a very tough time proving that his car is/was worth "millions", as he claims.
The good news and bottom line (from my perspective) is that this isn't going to take down Tesla, although it clearly could be a distraction and diversion. As someone who does this for a living, I tell plaintiffs and defendants that the only people who win in a lawsuit are the lawyers -- I don't know the whole history here, but it's clearly quite acrimonious, and tragic that their relationship devolved to this point. The one thing I am certain of is that neither EM nor ME will be completely satisfied with the result and it's going to waste a lot of everyone's time.
In any case, solely from a legal point of view ME has a pretty weak case based on the Complaint. Obviously, he and EM don't like each other much, but there's nothing unlawful or actionable in saying things like, "Martin Eberhad is the worst person I've ever met or worked with", which EM allegedly said at one point. Most or all of what EM says about ME is opinion, not knowingly false facts, and that is the standard for a defamation claim.
ME's claim about the "Founder" issue is also weak because most or all of his examples are situations where someone else calls EM the "founder" of TM, and he faults EM for failing to correct them. I mean, if it was EM's (or anyone's) responsibility to correct every false bit of information that the media says, he'd never stop issuing corrections! I know of no case where a court would allow a claim of defamation based on statements by others that weren't corrected by the defendant -- that's too high a burden to place on people. And even if ME were right about the Founder issue, his assertion that because EM wanted to be known as a "Founder" at PayPal seems a bit attenuated, especially because they didn't put a specific dollar value on it.
I think ME's strongest argument is on his car. That's a pretty weird story, and I could see a court giving ME some compensation for the fact that EM may have negligently allowed ME's car to get in an accident before it was ever delivered to him. ME, though, will have a very tough time proving that his car is/was worth "millions", as he claims.
The good news and bottom line (from my perspective) is that this isn't going to take down Tesla, although it clearly could be a distraction and diversion. As someone who does this for a living, I tell plaintiffs and defendants that the only people who win in a lawsuit are the lawyers -- I don't know the whole history here, but it's clearly quite acrimonious, and tragic that their relationship devolved to this point. The one thing I am certain of is that neither EM nor ME will be completely satisfied with the result and it's going to waste a lot of everyone's time.
Exactly... other than that, it'll give the Tesla haters some ammo, the Elon haters some fuel and still manage to accomplish nothing more than possibly stroking EM or ME's egos
Yes, exactly. I have the same impression as you. From what I remember from law school, libel cases are pretty hard to win, and truth is always a defense. ME won't get far suing EM over his opinions. I guess the one bit where ME might have a better case is the row about the Roadster's costs being misrepresented; he might be able to prove the statement false. But it's still not a slam dunk.
Yes, he has something to go on, but I seem to recall Siry saying that TM offered to provide him with a brand new car, albeit with some delay. ME chose to take the crashed car instead, for whatever reason.
The way I see it, the strongest case is that he didn't get P2, the second car off the line. TM was obligated to provide that, and somehow EM gave the car to a friend instead. I was a little surprised that ME didn't file some sort of injunction the moment he found out about it, although it may be that filing now has the same effect as then.
ME's car
Dosnt his car say Vin 002? And what about the delay because of cust paint?
Autobloggreen seems to have covered this topic good
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/12/tesla-saga-continues-when-is-production-car-2-not/
Dosnt his car say Vin 002? And what about the delay because of cust paint?
Autobloggreen seems to have covered this topic good
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/12/tesla-saga-continues-when-is-production-car-2-not/
Last edited:
Thanks for that link.. it clears up the whole "car 2 was sold to Elon's friend" bit with this (from Martin himself):
So even tho ME's complaint makes it seem like HIS car was sold to someone else, the car in question was still technically VIN #3, and was delivered before Martin's (assuming because of the custom paint thing going on).
It's not unusual for vehicles to be delivered/created out of VIN sequence, but I suppose in this case, I can see why you'd want to split hairs on the matter.
*edit* in the comments Martin says that VIN 3 was actually started BEFORE VIN 2. If that's the case, then yeah, it definitely sounds suspicious
Last edited:
Martin seems to have a good claim to his four monthly severance payments that were never received.
He might also get those stock options that were promised in the severance agreement.
The other claims about his car are fairly good and well documented.
The issues over who is a real "founder" seems kinda weak. There is no way to assign value on those issues. It seems mostly like a couple of guys with big egos and not enough credit to go around for everyone.
He might also get those stock options that were promised in the severance agreement.
The other claims about his car are fairly good and well documented.
The issues over who is a real "founder" seems kinda weak. There is no way to assign value on those issues. It seems mostly like a couple of guys with big egos and not enough credit to go around for everyone.
Can't believe I just wasted the better part of an hour reading that document. My legal experience is that I worked as a paralegal for 3 years and I could write a better brief than that with my eyes closed. Is there some reward for making the complaint 100 pages too long just for the sake of whining about things that ARE NOT ISSUES OF LAW. Even the precious few items of substance are laid out in a manner that is almost unitelligible when it comes to the actual effects of such actions. I understand the oft used legal tactic of throwing it all at the wall and seeing what sticks, but this particular document undermines MEs credibility more than it does that of EM or Tesla Motors. A dispute is a dispute, but it's a shame that this one is so muddled in crap.
I suspect ME is more of one of those clients that have a bit of a reputation and dictate what "facts" are alleged in a complaint rather than what needs to be in there. There are any number of attorneys that would jump to help him. Rather than piss the client off, you simply add them...speaking from experience, what does it hurt.
Look at all of the media that has picked up and reported the lawsuit summary.
So just filing it did have a purpose for Martin. The merits of the lawsuit are another issue. But the filing of it does sort of set the record straight for Martin.
The media just broadcast Martin's point of view on the history.
Some more articles:
Tesla Motors co-founder sues CEO, company - Los Angeles Times
Tesla Motors founder Eberhard sues Elon Musk - The Register
Tesla Co-Founder Sues Elon Musk's Ass Off - Business Insider
Tesla Co-Founder Eberhard's Whiny Lawsuit - Business Insider
Former Tesla CEO sues company, current CEO Musk | Green Tech - CNET News
Tesla Co-Founder Sues CEO Elon Musk For Slander And Breach Of Contract - TechCrunch
Gawker - Tesla Executives Squabbled Over Their Cars Like Customers - Tesla Motors
Jay Yarrow of Business Insider shows his level of journalism with his titles.
Tesla Motors co-founder sues CEO, company - Los Angeles Times
Tesla Motors founder Eberhard sues Elon Musk - The Register
Tesla Co-Founder Sues Elon Musk's Ass Off - Business Insider
Tesla Co-Founder Eberhard's Whiny Lawsuit - Business Insider
Former Tesla CEO sues company, current CEO Musk | Green Tech - CNET News
Tesla Co-Founder Sues CEO Elon Musk For Slander And Breach Of Contract - TechCrunch
Gawker - Tesla Executives Squabbled Over Their Cars Like Customers - Tesla Motors
Jay Yarrow of Business Insider shows his level of journalism with his titles.
Last edited:
Martin should know the difference. His lawyer might not.
Btw, that link to the article was posted here by the author.
Skimming over it last night, most of the articles sounded familiar, so I think they are likely on TMC somewhere. The epicfu.com interview that's mentioned I had posted here. If you listen carefully, Elon actually says, "The reason I funded Tesla was because..." But he says "funded" in a way that kinda sounds like "founded".
The story I've heard Elon tell is that he dropped out of the Stanford PhD Physics program two days into it. I interpret that as two days after the quarter started, which is effectively the same as never enrolling. You certainly save on fees that way. So I wouldn't take issue with that. All that really matters is if he got accepted to the program. The topic of study he has talked about, working on super/ultra capacitors, actually sounds like it would be more in the MatSci dept, but could also be in Physics. He's mentioned that he had some professor/advisor here, I wonder who that was.
Not having the B.S. in physics from Penn is a bigger issue, if true.
A lot of the ABG coverage actually came from this site. Martin's car does say VIN F002. The odd thing is the person named in the Complaint is the guy that got VIN F004, seen here being delivered in Chicago. VIN F003 went to a different individual, and it was understood that that car was actually "the second production car."
Last edited:
Wrong.
Musk himself said many times "I started Tesla", "I founded Tesla" etc.
He might have said "I funded Tesla" but got misunderstood. Failing to correct it is now his fault, not Martins. Other repeating it, is Elons fault.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
